From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: stupid mail about letrec Date: 25 Mar 2002 19:50:27 +0100 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87u1r4zdl8.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: <20020325.140227.71101513.Sven.Hartrumpf@FernUni-Hagen.de> <87vgbk1vqw.fsf@becket.becket.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017082614 5273 127.0.0.1 (25 Mar 2002 18:56:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:56:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Sven Hartrumpf , guile-user@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16pZeI-0001Mw-00 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:56:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16pZYg-0004uL-00; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:51:06 -0500 Original-Received: from dialin.speedway42.dip40.dokom.de ([195.138.42.40] helo=zagadka.ping.de) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16pZVq-0004iJ-00 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:48:10 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 1268 invoked by uid 1000); 25 Mar 2002 18:50:27 -0000 Original-To: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) In-Reply-To: <87vgbk1vqw.fsf@becket.becket.net> Original-Lines: 17 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:56 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:56 tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > Sven Hartrumpf writes: > > > >So chicken and MIT-scheme don't give you an error for the letrec > > >expression that you quoted before? > > > > No, all return 8 for (letrec ((a 2) (b (* a 4))) b). > > Also mzscheme, bigloo, chez, sisc, scsh, gauche, gambit. > > Only SCM behaves like guile. > > This might make an interesting posting in comp.lang.scheme :-) > > Yes, but it is an error nontheless. However, I think it is an interesting extension. Internal defines would behave more 'natural' that way. It's probably better to define a new letrec* form, tho, instead of changing the definition of letrec. _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user